[Index] [About] [Participants] [Forum] [Vote] [Letters] [Disclaimer] [Archive]

Seeking A Better Future: Russia and Europe

The Ambassador of the Russian Federation Grigory Karasin’s speech to the European-Atlantic Group on 24^th May 2001 about Russia’s role in the 21^st Century.

The Ambassador of the Russian Federation gave a positive speech that tackled a wide range of difficult problems and controversial subjects, including the conflict in Chechnya. His Excellency Mr Grigory Karasin gave his address, which was warmly received, to the European-Atlantic Group on May 24^th 2001. One delegate joked that he had a head start, compared to Germany, because of the Russian “sacrifice” as an ally to Britain during the Second World War.

Referring to the more recent legacy of the Cold War, Karasin implored: “We have left it behind us.” Yet nobody reminded the delegates that World War II had in fact ended long ago too!

The Ambassador looked at how Russia hopes to move forward with democracy to solve its own economic and political problems. Questions were also raised about the enlargement of NATO and European Union towards former Warsaw Pact states such as Poland and the Ukraine. The underlying themes covered international terrorism, the new Russian identity, human rights, defence and world peace and co-operation and the future roles international bodies like the United Nations.

Russia, Chechnya, The Baltics and The Balkans

With reference to the problems in the former Yugoslavian states and Chechnya, His Excellency said that we should apply “a law of logic in order not to replace one form of terrorism with another, and not to kill one people in place of another.” This statement, according to Karasin’s speech, underlines Russian foreign policy in the pursuit of new partnerships. Devolution was proffered as a possible means of fostering good relations with the newly independent republics of the former Soviet Union, and member countries of the Russian Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Conservative would-be MP Michael Shrimpton suggested that everyone applauded Russia’s actions in Chechnya. Yet the above principles seemed lost in the Chechen crisis. When has Britain ever adopted a policy of all out war in Northern Ireland? Russia on the other hand reacted in just that way against the Chechen rebels. The Ambassador admitted that mistakes had been made during the crisis. It was also inferred by the chairman of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce that the British press “are a poor reporter of what is really happening in Russia.” With a new Chechen administration and fresh talks he hopes that peace will be restored to the region, in spite of labelling Chechnya as “a hot bed for terrorism.”

 The chairman of the Latvian Council seemed surprised when H.E Grigory Karasin said that Russia could not explain to its own people why NATO wishes to expand. In order to find an answer, he suggested that the ambassador should read the history books dating back to both Tsarist and Soviet times. “The past is a link to the present, and future developments are linked,” he proclaimed. Demanding an apology he spoke about the legacy of the Soviet Union. This statement was in response to Russia’s accusations that ethnic Russians, living in the Baltic States, and their human rights are being abused by the Latvians.

The Latvian Council representative explained: “During Tsarist times Russia always expanded to liberate people, but in the end it was a cruel occupation. The Baltic States were forcibly occupied in 1940, but you refer to them as Soviet Republics because that was a charade put up for them. The Soviet Union deported, imprisoned and killed some 200,000 people in Latvia out of a population of one million. There’s neither restitution, nor an apology to these people, nor compensation for slave labour. The legacy of the Soviet Union was to Russify the Baltic States with the introduction of a million Russians.”

Some 600,000 Russians remain in Latvia, which is “trying to do its best for them,” explained the Latvian Council’s chairman. He revealed that in conversation with a Russian ambassador he had uncovered some differences of opinion with the official line given by Moscow. The ambassador, not Ambassador H.E Karasin, said that it was not true that Latvia is abusing the human rights of the remaining Russian settlers in the country.

Karasin reminded everyone that Russia has the right to raise issues over human rights abuses “in whatever part of Europe, because we are members of the Council of Europe.” His Excellency raised Russia’s concerns about the rise in pro-Nazi groups in the Baltic States. He feels that the treatment by “certain Baltic states,” by which many Russians faced punishment simply because they fought against fascism more than 50 years ago, “is not exactly the best way to introduce friendly relations between the Baltic States and Russia.”

Karasin suggested that allowing veteran pro-Nazi groups to march in the streets of the Baltic States is “not a very good sign, and way for a young European state to introduce itself to the international community.” Whether we like neo-Nazis or not, surely though they have a democratic right to voice their opinions? The ambassador’s speech spoke much about instilling democracy into former Soviet states and improving Russia’s own standing. Yet H.E Grigory Karasin has a point, because of the European Union’s reaction to the election, albeit short-lived, of Jorg Haider to the Austrian presidency.

Eurosceptics cried wolf against the EU’s “undemocratic” interference. Even so it is amazing that even after more than 50 years the voice of the far-right still chills our bones. The defeat of fascism surely marginalised it? Arguably it is also natural for an occupied state to support an opposing domestic or foreign regime, no matter how extreme. The former Soviet and Tsarist states have their own human rights’ abuses to answer for too.

Moving on to the Balkans. EuroPolls asked the ambassador how he thinks a long-term and permanent peace can be achieved in the region. The Balkans have been a trouble hot spot for centuries in the guise of the Eastern Question. After World War II Tito at least created, even under a communist regime, some stability in the region in the form of Yugoslavia.

Post-communism the quarrels re-awoke from their shallow graves, and led to the conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo and now Macedonia. His Excellency exclaimed: “That’s a $2 million question!” The current peace in Kosovo is not absolute, even after the fall of Milosevic, because it depends on the presence of NATO troops. Karasin explained:

“We have a number of proposals on the table, as well as our European partners. Generally what people are aimed at is a complex of measures that will put strategic stability arrangements to the Balkans. It is easy to say that, and easy to name the assessment paper, but it is really difficult to discuss and really hard to fix the acceptable arrangements. So if we go step by step, that is also an approach if those steps are taken thoughtfully together.”

He said there needs to be some “long standing peaceful arrangements where all the people living there are happy and, you know, stability is the name of the game“ Diplomats as he underlined don’t always reveal what’s “up their sleeves” until they have approached the negotiating table. More than ever Karasin feels that the impetus for resolving the conflicts and potential differences within the Balkans should come from the public.

Yet Russia’s insistence that its troops on June 12^th 1999 should be the first to enter Kosovo also poses questions about its role. His Excellency repetitively emphasised that the “Cold War is over.” Russian involvement at the time seemed to play out an East versus West scenario. Russia perhaps pandered to public opinion at home. Russia, nevertheless, played an important role in ending the Kosovo conflict.

Two years on Karasin believes that a solution to the problem is getting closer. In order to achieve the goal of peace and stability in the Balkans he concluded that there will be many meetings. Most would agree that the presence of Russian forces alongside their NATO counterparts is an important part of the strategy to maintain and achieve long-term peace in the Balkans.

Neville Trotter, honorary adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on defence, praised Russia for its involvement in Kosovo. “I think it is very important to involve your country as much as we can in international affairs, and I’m delighted to see the Russian army very much involved in the peacekeeping in Kosovo”; he said.

He added that the Russian troops are doing an “excellent job.” Mr. Trotter finds it hard to “find an easy answer to the problems” in the region, because the Kosovo-Albanians wrongly think that they have won independence. NATO and the United Nations never had the intention of dividing up what is left of what was Yugoslavia. Then again NATO didn’t initially have a UN mandate for its own actions in Kosovo, which temporarily divided the organisation.

          Russia And Europe Continued...

[About EuroPolls]  [Index] [Participants] [EMU Forum] 
[EMU Vote] [Letters] [Legal Disclaimer] [Archive]